Oil production peaked in 2004 if I'm reading wikipedia correctly. Oil production per capita peaked in 1979. Peak Oil is a mathematical certainty if there are not an infinite amount of hydrocarbons on Earth. We can easily talk about Peak Oil in the past tense if we focus on the major oilfields; we've pretty much used up all of the oil that's easy to get to. Hubbert actually predicted the timing of the US's peak oil production pretty accurately. Additionally, demand for oil is far outpacing production; there's a lot of people on this planet. Thus, even if production continues apace, oil will continue to become more expensive.
But go ahead and keep thinking you're smarter than everyone else. Clearly all future predictions are worthless.
I'm gay (for the purposes of this discussion). Most of my male friends are gay, and most of my social activities involve seeking out other gay people. Not necessarily for sex; it just makes my life easier. Like the blonde with big tits, I can say "Do this for me because you think I'm hot."
I digress. In my experience, flaming in-your-face gays are an extreme minority -- less than ten percent of the population. Out of my circle of friends it's more like 1%. A much larger percentage (say, a third to one half) are obviously gay but not flaming. At least 20% act straight enough to fool me.
The concept of "gaydar" wouldn't exist if all gays were readily identifiable. Most of us act straight, at least when we're around straight people. You're not interested, we're not interested, why advertise? There's a large segment of the gay population that is privately disdainful of the extremely flamboyant or effeminate gay man. For the most part though we tolerate such behavior in the name of freedom of expression. The only gays that seem to be sufficiently self-destructive to want to limit their group's behaviors seem to be Congressmen.
That said, GP may live in San Francisco, or some other city that draws the flamboyant types. I'd suggest either getting over himself, or moving.
The only justice is that which is defined by society, generally in the form of laws. We give men rights (they are not inherent) so that we may more fairly structure our societies; the rights of society are paramount. What you advocate is totalitarianism in the form of monarchy; the ultimate expression of your philosophy is one man who owns the whole world. Concentration of wealth *diminishes* its utility, even your anarcho-capitalist textbooks should teach you that.
Of-course Marxists like you, are happy to use any amount of collective government violence to ensure that the wealth is "distributed equally", which means unproductively from people who CREATE wealth, to those who WANT it. Thus eventually you descend into totalitarianism and dictatorship, and you call THAT justice.
There has to be some logical step between "equal distribution of wealth" and "dictatorship". I think you need to be a little more explicit in step two. Or just y'know, admit that you're scarred by personal experiences and you're trying to rationalize what is inherently an emotional argument that has nothing to do with the real world. There is no useful pure philosophy, in attempting to argue for one you're revealing yourself as a nutcase (and harming your cause).
Why limit your sense of entitlement? I want a gold-plated maserati with a blowjob dispenser, for what I have in my pocket right now....looks like about 70 cents. I can compromise on the gold plating as long as the blowjob dispenser is turbocharged. And someone oughta repeal the Clean Air act too! It's my right as a consumer to do whatever I want! If that means those spotted owls get a coating of tar to go with their feathers, well then they shoulda been a consumer instead.
I concur. Although given the populace, the difference between 'riot' and 'armed rebellion' would be hard to distinguish.
I'd join them. I've paid income tax, that's enough regressive taxation. The cost of living here isn't quite on the level of e.g. Manhattan or Honolulu, but average wages are much lower. Things were better in the days of cheap oil; we'd better get on the nuclear bandwagon if we want any future for the state.
The point of the terminal is that you have all the commands for every program accessible in one location. The downfall is that you have to know the commands beforehand.
There's actually a number of other reasons why the terminal works well. You can chain commands, you can express them without resorting to screenshots or ambiguous descriptions, scripting is easy, there's no gui overhead, and remote system access is dramatically simplified. Multitasking is sort of prevented but most people, including myself, would work better without it.
What I'm interested in is how well Powershell's object-based architecture works. It seems like the best thing Microsoft could have done under the circumstances, but is there an advantage there? Has anyone here done any serious PS scripting? From what I understand there are constraints on what programs will accept as input, a tradeoff of flexibility for consistency and reliability I suppose. Is that something that linux should adopt?
No, open source developers do not (by and large) care about large pieces of marketshare. More users usually just means more inane, useless bug reports. And if all software makers are supposed to be copying each other, who is going to drive innovation? Do we just cede the reins to Apple and hope that we get more candy than shit out of that deal? Should we wait until the next version of OSX or Creative Suite to see what they do, and hope that everything is perfect?
For what it's worth, you can have linux with the Windows UI if you want. Few people do. The Mac UI is also possible and a bit more popular. ReactOS is probably not getting a lot of love because Windows is, by and large, badly written. We have enough bad APIs already; making a bug-exact copy of a buggy piece of software sounds like masochism to me.
By and large, I would say that the push for linux on the desktop has died down, certainly since Android. So has the desktop market; most users are happy with what they can do on a walled-garden smartphone. The recent UI changes to linux and windows seem to have taken notice of this trend---are you sure you know which way the wind is blowing?
Everyone who can claim neediness is...everyone, at some point. Was your dad able to pay his own medical bills when he couldn't breathe? My dad couldn't. The costs for medical care are already borne by society--family members mostly. The position we put sick people in is literally, "Your money or your life." Go ahead, justify that one for me.
Also, as if we needed any further reasons, we already pay more than every other civilized nation for worse care. We could lower taxes and improve services. We could prohibit drug companies from advertising and make drugs cost less too.
Finally, If you feel taxation is so evil, feel free to withdraw from society.
Actually, yes. I think it's a universal truth of politicians: they all deserve a fair trial. What, are we supposed to wait until the politicians start investigating themselves?
It might even be nice if they spent so much time in the courtroom they couldn't manage to accomplish anything outside of it.
If you have an SSD, disable swap. There's no reason to be continually writing to one section of the disk. If you must have swap, use a spinning disk. Also, assuming you're running linux, you should set swappiness=0. Depending on your SSD repeated writes *may* not be an issue, but pretty much all of them fail catastrophically and without warning when they do fail.
There's a bit more optimization you can do with SSDs but I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader.
The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37ÂC, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.
At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affecteÂd.
There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt.
The complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the West Antarctic ice sheet would lead to a contribution to sea-level rise of up to 7 m and about 5 m, respectively [Working Group I Fourth Assessment 6.4, 10.7; Working Group II Fourth Assessment 19.3].
Antarctica and Greenland, the world's largest ice sheets, make up the vast majority of the Earth's ice. If these ice sheets melted entirely, sea level would rise by more than 70 meters.
Your move. Let's see what asshole you pulled this "not more than a foot" number from.
Sales taxes of all kinds can be considered 'double dipping' as your income is already taxed. Additionally, they are regressive taxes.
When doing business with amazon, you are entering into a private transaction that is (probably) not within the state's borders or jurisdiction, unless Amazon is incorporated in that state. Congress is granted the right to regulate interstate commerce, they have not done so in this case. They're also required to make such duties equal across all 50 states, which is probably not going to be a popular move.
So in general I think this is a bad thing, and the only thing worse would be for brick-and-mortar retailers to lobby congress and make it legal.
The best thing about Moblin/Meego was that it booted in five seconds. The technology was originally demo'd in 2007 by an Intel engineer, and has been part of the project since then. Other distros have picked up on some of the technology (sreadahead, parallel boot) but no one else has come close to the actual boot times. The EeePC's bios also had a 'readahead' feature that basically saved the bios state to disk (SSD) and read that into memory the next boot, practically eliminating the BIOS segment of the boot time. Other mobos presumably have similar features, but seven seconds from power button to desktop on a netbook was mind-blowing at the time, and is still impressive.
IMO they should have kept the focus on it as a netbook platform, and not gotten bogged down trying to package it for car stereos and cell phones and netbooks all at once. It would have made the transition to tablets with little UI modification.
Yeah, the part where service providers aren't liable for shit people use their networks for* is pretty much universally agreed to be a Good Thing. The rest of the law had issues, but the enforcement issue seems to be rather intractable.
Just so you know, what you are advocating is considered an act of war. It also doesn't remove the financial incentive to bring drugs to the US: elements of the US military are and have been major players in the drug trade. Coast Guard cutters hold a lot more cocaine than submarines, and even if the captain isn't in on it (unlikely), crew members can buy a kilo for $1000 and sell it in the states for $30k or more. Many of them do.
Did you read the story about how the ATF became the biggest gun smugglers? If the DEA isn't the biggest importer of drugs into the US, it's only because they make more money confiscating people's houses.
Your 'government with no compunction about drug use' exists, you're just not thinking broadly enough. Drugs are everywhere in America--advertised on television FFS! You should count carbohydrates as a drug as well, they're a dependency harder to quit than most other drugs and have a huge long-term affect on health (diabetes, obesity).
You're not going to win this one. Your goals are antidemocratic, your methods barbaric, the implementers corrupt. If you can't keep drugs out of maximum security prisons what hope can you reasonably have for the rest of us?
Did you have to choose such a retarded topic to get into a pissing match about? You two guys post here all the time. Mostly stuff worth reading---this doesn't qualify even as a good flamewar. Give it a rest.
Thanks for the history lesson; it was unnecessary and condescending, but also too long. As long as we're just posturing, I believe concision and citations will serve to confirm others of their own bias more effectively. Appeals to emotion may be even more efficacious. In any case, I apologize for not rising to your level of rhetoric, but I look forward to tilting with you on some other field. With respect,
-T
Right, it's a global conspiracy. The glaciers are still there, they're just covered in masking tape. RealClimate is somehow not a reliable source for an easily-observed and uncontroversial phenomenon.
From the batshit insane perspective of an AGW denier, this is one of those find-alternate-explanations topics, not a deny-it's-happening topic. You must have missed the memo. Or maybe you have all of the missing glacier ice in a warehouse somewhere.
Polar bears normally range far out onto the pack ice. Sightings are up because there's less pack ice. This is alluded to in your linked article, which falls far short of being evidence for anything.
Glacial retreat is anything but anecdotal. It is an easilyverifiedfact. You can argue the reasons for the retreat. You'd be an idiot, but you could argue that greenhouse gases don't have certain physical properties, or that human emissions get cleaned up by a magic sky dragon. When you're willing to disregard the factual, anything is possible!
I'm from Alaska. There, global warming is not theoretical, it is quite visible. Glaciers that took 10,000 years to form are vanishing in a matter of decades. Drastic action is what we've been doing to the environment by releasing levels of CO2 that the planet has only rarely heretofore experienced. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some violent emotion to vent.
Slashdot Mirror
Oil production peaked in 2004 if I'm reading wikipedia correctly. Oil production per capita peaked in 1979. Peak Oil is a mathematical certainty if there are not an infinite amount of hydrocarbons on Earth. We can easily talk about Peak Oil in the past tense if we focus on the major oilfields; we've pretty much used up all of the oil that's easy to get to. Hubbert actually predicted the timing of the US's peak oil production pretty accurately. Additionally, demand for oil is far outpacing production; there's a lot of people on this planet. Thus, even if production continues apace, oil will continue to become more expensive.
But go ahead and keep thinking you're smarter than everyone else. Clearly all future predictions are worthless.
I'm gay (for the purposes of this discussion). Most of my male friends are gay, and most of my social activities involve seeking out other gay people. Not necessarily for sex; it just makes my life easier. Like the blonde with big tits, I can say "Do this for me because you think I'm hot."
I digress. In my experience, flaming in-your-face gays are an extreme minority -- less than ten percent of the population. Out of my circle of friends it's more like 1%. A much larger percentage (say, a third to one half) are obviously gay but not flaming. At least 20% act straight enough to fool me.
The concept of "gaydar" wouldn't exist if all gays were readily identifiable. Most of us act straight, at least when we're around straight people. You're not interested, we're not interested, why advertise? There's a large segment of the gay population that is privately disdainful of the extremely flamboyant or effeminate gay man. For the most part though we tolerate such behavior in the name of freedom of expression. The only gays that seem to be sufficiently self-destructive to want to limit their group's behaviors seem to be Congressmen.
That said, GP may live in San Francisco, or some other city that draws the flamboyant types. I'd suggest either getting over himself, or moving.
"Entre le fort et le faible, entre le riche et le pauvre, entre le maître et le serviteur, câ(TM)est la liberté qui opprime et la loi qui affranchit."
The only justice is that which is defined by society, generally in the form of laws. We give men rights (they are not inherent) so that we may more fairly structure our societies; the rights of society are paramount. What you advocate is totalitarianism in the form of monarchy; the ultimate expression of your philosophy is one man who owns the whole world. Concentration of wealth *diminishes* its utility, even your anarcho-capitalist textbooks should teach you that.
Of-course Marxists like you, are happy to use any amount of collective government violence to ensure that the wealth is "distributed equally", which means unproductively from people who CREATE wealth, to those who WANT it. Thus eventually you descend into totalitarianism and dictatorship, and you call THAT justice.
There has to be some logical step between "equal distribution of wealth" and "dictatorship". I think you need to be a little more explicit in step two. Or just y'know, admit that you're scarred by personal experiences and you're trying to rationalize what is inherently an emotional argument that has nothing to do with the real world. There is no useful pure philosophy, in attempting to argue for one you're revealing yourself as a nutcase (and harming your cause).
Ouch. Selection bias much?
Why limit your sense of entitlement? I want a gold-plated maserati with a blowjob dispenser, for what I have in my pocket right now....looks like about 70 cents. I can compromise on the gold plating as long as the blowjob dispenser is turbocharged. And someone oughta repeal the Clean Air act too! It's my right as a consumer to do whatever I want! If that means those spotted owls get a coating of tar to go with their feathers, well then they shoulda been a consumer instead.
I concur. Although given the populace, the difference between 'riot' and 'armed rebellion' would be hard to distinguish.
I'd join them. I've paid income tax, that's enough regressive taxation. The cost of living here isn't quite on the level of e.g. Manhattan or Honolulu, but average wages are much lower. Things were better in the days of cheap oil; we'd better get on the nuclear bandwagon if we want any future for the state.
If your hourly rate is above 5.4 times the minimum wage as a computer worker ($27.63/hr), your employer may forgo paying you overtime.
The point of the terminal is that you have all the commands for every program accessible in one location. The downfall is that you have to know the commands beforehand.
There's actually a number of other reasons why the terminal works well. You can chain commands, you can express them without resorting to screenshots or ambiguous descriptions, scripting is easy, there's no gui overhead, and remote system access is dramatically simplified. Multitasking is sort of prevented but most people, including myself, would work better without it.
What I'm interested in is how well Powershell's object-based architecture works. It seems like the best thing Microsoft could have done under the circumstances, but is there an advantage there? Has anyone here done any serious PS scripting? From what I understand there are constraints on what programs will accept as input, a tradeoff of flexibility for consistency and reliability I suppose. Is that something that linux should adopt?
One of the most insightful comments I've ever read on here.
No, open source developers do not (by and large) care about large pieces of marketshare. More users usually just means more inane, useless bug reports. And if all software makers are supposed to be copying each other, who is going to drive innovation? Do we just cede the reins to Apple and hope that we get more candy than shit out of that deal? Should we wait until the next version of OSX or Creative Suite to see what they do, and hope that everything is perfect?
For what it's worth, you can have linux with the Windows UI if you want. Few people do. The Mac UI is also possible and a bit more popular. ReactOS is probably not getting a lot of love because Windows is, by and large, badly written. We have enough bad APIs already; making a bug-exact copy of a buggy piece of software sounds like masochism to me.
By and large, I would say that the push for linux on the desktop has died down, certainly since Android. So has the desktop market; most users are happy with what they can do on a walled-garden smartphone. The recent UI changes to linux and windows seem to have taken notice of this trend---are you sure you know which way the wind is blowing?
Their algorithms are published. PageRank is even patented. What exactly are you on about?
Everyone who can claim neediness is...everyone, at some point. Was your dad able to pay his own medical bills when he couldn't breathe? My dad couldn't. The costs for medical care are already borne by society--family members mostly. The position we put sick people in is literally, "Your money or your life." Go ahead, justify that one for me.
Also, as if we needed any further reasons, we already pay more than every other civilized nation for worse care. We could lower taxes and improve services. We could prohibit drug companies from advertising and make drugs cost less too.
Finally, If you feel taxation is so evil, feel free to withdraw from society.
Actually, yes. I think it's a universal truth of politicians: they all deserve a fair trial. What, are we supposed to wait until the politicians start investigating themselves?
It might even be nice if they spent so much time in the courtroom they couldn't manage to accomplish anything outside of it.
If you have an SSD, disable swap. There's no reason to be continually writing to one section of the disk. If you must have swap, use a spinning disk. Also, assuming you're running linux, you should set swappiness=0. Depending on your SSD repeated writes *may* not be an issue, but pretty much all of them fail catastrophically and without warning when they do fail.
There's a bit more optimization you can do with SSDs but I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question473.htm
The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37ÂC, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.
At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affecteÂd.
There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt.
The numbers here are likely to be more accurate:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/spmsspm-c-15-magnitudes-of.html
The complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the West Antarctic ice sheet would lead to a contribution to sea-level rise of up to 7 m and about 5 m, respectively [Working Group I Fourth Assessment 6.4, 10.7; Working Group II Fourth Assessment 19.3].
Yet another source: http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_level.html
Antarctica and Greenland, the world's largest ice sheets, make up the vast majority of the Earth's ice. If these ice sheets melted entirely, sea level would rise by more than 70 meters.
Your move. Let's see what asshole you pulled this "not more than a foot" number from.
Sales taxes of all kinds can be considered 'double dipping' as your income is already taxed. Additionally, they are regressive taxes.
When doing business with amazon, you are entering into a private transaction that is (probably) not within the state's borders or jurisdiction, unless Amazon is incorporated in that state. Congress is granted the right to regulate interstate commerce, they have not done so in this case. They're also required to make such duties equal across all 50 states, which is probably not going to be a popular move.
So in general I think this is a bad thing, and the only thing worse would be for brick-and-mortar retailers to lobby congress and make it legal.
"If"
The best thing about Moblin/Meego was that it booted in five seconds. The technology was originally demo'd in 2007 by an Intel engineer, and has been part of the project since then. Other distros have picked up on some of the technology (sreadahead, parallel boot) but no one else has come close to the actual boot times. The EeePC's bios also had a 'readahead' feature that basically saved the bios state to disk (SSD) and read that into memory the next boot, practically eliminating the BIOS segment of the boot time. Other mobos presumably have similar features, but seven seconds from power button to desktop on a netbook was mind-blowing at the time, and is still impressive.
IMO they should have kept the focus on it as a netbook platform, and not gotten bogged down trying to package it for car stereos and cell phones and netbooks all at once. It would have made the transition to tablets with little UI modification.
Yeah, the part where service providers aren't liable for shit people use their networks for* is pretty much universally agreed to be a Good Thing. The rest of the law had issues, but the enforcement issue seems to be rather intractable.
*Provided they respond to takedown requests.
Just so you know, what you are advocating is considered an act of war. It also doesn't remove the financial incentive to bring drugs to the US: elements of the US military are and have been major players in the drug trade. Coast Guard cutters hold a lot more cocaine than submarines, and even if the captain isn't in on it (unlikely), crew members can buy a kilo for $1000 and sell it in the states for $30k or more. Many of them do.
Did you read the story about how the ATF became the biggest gun smugglers? If the DEA isn't the biggest importer of drugs into the US, it's only because they make more money confiscating people's houses.
Your 'government with no compunction about drug use' exists, you're just not thinking broadly enough. Drugs are everywhere in America--advertised on television FFS! You should count carbohydrates as a drug as well, they're a dependency harder to quit than most other drugs and have a huge long-term affect on health (diabetes, obesity).
You're not going to win this one. Your goals are antidemocratic, your methods barbaric, the implementers corrupt. If you can't keep drugs out of maximum security prisons what hope can you reasonably have for the rest of us?
Did you have to choose such a retarded topic to get into a pissing match about? You two guys post here all the time. Mostly stuff worth reading---this doesn't qualify even as a good flamewar. Give it a rest.
Thanks for the history lesson; it was unnecessary and condescending, but also too long. As long as we're just posturing, I believe concision and citations will serve to confirm others of their own bias more effectively. Appeals to emotion may be even more efficacious. In any case, I apologize for not rising to your level of rhetoric, but I look forward to tilting with you on some other field. With respect,
-T
Right, it's a global conspiracy. The glaciers are still there, they're just covered in masking tape. RealClimate is somehow not a reliable source for an easily-observed and uncontroversial phenomenon.
From the batshit insane perspective of an AGW denier, this is one of those find-alternate-explanations topics, not a deny-it's-happening topic. You must have missed the memo. Or maybe you have all of the missing glacier ice in a warehouse somewhere.
Polar bears normally range far out onto the pack ice. Sightings are up because there's less pack ice. This is alluded to in your linked article, which falls far short of being evidence for anything.
Glacial retreat is anything but anecdotal. It is an easily verified fact. You can argue the reasons for the retreat. You'd be an idiot, but you could argue that greenhouse gases don't have certain physical properties, or that human emissions get cleaned up by a magic sky dragon. When you're willing to disregard the factual, anything is possible!
I'm from Alaska. There, global warming is not theoretical, it is quite visible. Glaciers that took 10,000 years to form are vanishing in a matter of decades. Drastic action is what we've been doing to the environment by releasing levels of CO2 that the planet has only rarely heretofore experienced. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some violent emotion to vent.